MrButlerKing yazdı:The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan. The source from the graph never mentions those proto-European were proto-Turks yet this person deliberately added fake data.

It is not a fake data. It is an analysis of the table published by Orazak Ismagulov at his study named "Physical Anthropology of Kazakh People and their Genesis. Read the full article of the study paper and you will see that the comments(a couple of words) in red colour are correct.

The Iron Age is equal to the Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the modern Kazakh Turks. So, empty the filth in your hearth, and use your logics, If it is historically proven that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns/Turks, then are the ancestors of the Sycthians / Sakha's not the "Proto Turks", YES THEY ARE.

MrButlerKing yazdı:The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.

Orazak Ismagulov is talking about the LABELS of the 3 MAIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPES:

-Caucasoid-Mongoloid-African

Like mentioned at the analysis at the following link: viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267#p15193, the correct definition of these labels, which are only words being used, are not equal to modern populations are:

-West Eurasian-East Eurasian-African

So, i am asking you the Huns and the Han Chinese are different people of different nations/races, right? Historical documents proof this obviously fact, right? Then, is it not stupid to call the skull type of the Han Chinese Mongoloid? If the Han Chinese and Huns are from different races/nations from each other, then is it not stupid to call the Huns Caucasoid? Yes it is.

The fact is that the majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types, with a minority of East Eurasian anthropological skull types. It is a historical fact that the Huns and the Scythians spoke the Turk Language. Then, the ancestors of the West Eurasian Huns and the Scythians were the Proto Turks.

Example showing the fact that the core of the Huns and the Scythians/Sakha's are the same:

MrButlerKing yazdı: You seem to claim every Y-DNA haplogroup as Turks.

Didn't you know since history Turks would turkified all their conquered inhabitants? this is why regions like central Asia, West Siberia, Caucasus who were historically of Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Caucasus ethnicites have people who have haplogroup native to the region. And the reason why haplogroup of Turks from Central Asia, Middle east, Turkey, west Siberia, Caucasus are all different from eachother.

I don't know where this source comes from but it seems more legit than fake data where it added proto-Turks as proto-Europoid

As you can see all Turks have large percentages of mtDNA and Y-DNA of Mongoloid, Caucasian and even south Asian origin to a extend. So we can all conclude there is so thing as pure West or East Eurasian haplogroup DNA.

1. The Haplogroups found among the Central Asian, Middle Eastern, Caucasian, Balkan and Siberian Turks are the same.

2. Among ALL MODERN NATIONS, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE NATION WHICH HAS ONLY ONE HAPLOGROUP.

Want to give an example of the Germanic modern nation:

-Napoleon is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA E1b.-Louis XVI is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA G2a.-15th century AD Martin Luther is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA I2a.-The House of Wettin is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA R1b.

So, the presence of multiple haplogroups is present among all modern nations.

3. Among ALL ACNIENT POPULATIONS, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE POPULATION WHICH HAS ONLY ONE HAPLOGROUP.

4. Genetic Mutations did start/happen/occur TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. The History of the Majority of the Modern Nations do not go further than 3000-4000 Years ago. The Only Exception is the Modern Turk Nation, their history goes back to at least the Sumerians, whom are Proto Turks whom spoke the Proto Turk Language, which dates to approximately 7000 Years Ago (5000 BCE).

5. Comparing the Genetic Mutations which occurred tens of thousands of years DIRECTLY WITH Modern Populations can only be done by people with bad intentions, or by people with low IQ.

Simple example to help you understand:

Haplogroups R and T both occured out of the root K*-M9 mutation.

-Lets say that 20.000 years ago, there were 1000 people of the same nation and culture whom belonged to Y-Haplogroup K-M9.

-After this, a couple of thousands of years later, the mutations of the Haplogroups R and T are occurred out of the M9 mutation.

-Two persons of the same nation and culture whom had earlier K-M9 genes, now belong to the new mutations of haplogroups R and T. The two persons do not know anything about the occurence of the new genetic mutations, because the scientific branch of genetics was not discovered yet. The families of the two persons still live together as people of the SAME NATION, and continue to live like this until modern AD times.

-So if we now find the results of haplogroups R and T among the people of the same modern nation, are these people of different races? No, they are not!

There are 3 main anthropological types that define the human races. Each of these anthropological types are equal to multiple Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups. And the Proto Turks were people with Skull Types of a majority of West Eurasian types, and a minority of East Eurasian types.

Read the detailed data about the occurrence of West Eurasian haplogroups among all modern Eurasian Turk tribes viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12288.

The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan.

The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.

Kazakhs today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and Mongols.

It is not a fake data. It is an analysis of the table published by Orazak Ismagulov at his study named "Physical Anthropology of Kazakh People and their Genesis. Read the full article of the study paper and you will see that the comments(a couple of words) in red colour are correct.

The Iron Age is equal to the Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the modern Kazakh Turks. So, empty the filth in your hearth, and use your logics, If it is historically proven that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns/Turks, then are the ancestors of the Sycthians / Sakha's not the "Proto Turks", YES THEY ARE.

MrButlerKing yazdı:The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.

Orazak Ismagulov is talking about the LABELS of the 3 MAIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPES:

-Caucasoid-Mongoloid-African

Like mentioned at the analysis at the following link: viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267#p15193, the correct definition of these labels, which are only words being used, are not equal to modern populations are:

-West Eurasian-East Eurasian-African

So, i am asking you the Huns and the Han Chinese are different people of different nations/races, right? Historical documents proof this obviously fact, right? Then, is it not stupid to call the skull type of the Han Chinese Mongoloid? If the Han Chinese and Huns are from different races/nations from each other, then is it not stupid to call the Huns Caucasoid? Yes it is.

The fact is that the majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types, with a minority of East Eurasian anthropological skull types. It is a historical fact that the Huns and the Scythians spoke the Turk Language. Then, the ancestors of the West Eurasian Huns and the Scythians were the Proto Turks.

Example showing the fact that the core of the Huns and the Scythians/Sakha's are the same:

MrButlerKing yazdı:Oh great. Don't you know every portrait you posted were made 500-1000 years after Attila's death. Some of pictures you posted were only 120 years ago.

So what if it was 500 years later than Attila was living? Do they not know who the descendants of Attila are around the 11th-12th-13th century AD? Yes, they do know!

500-1000 years is nothing, look at the present day descendants of the Ottoman dynasty. Some of them have the exact same facial type as the pictures in the ancient portraits of ancient Ottoman sultan Fatih Sultan Mehmed, who lived in the 15th century. Almost 600 years are past, and still the same facial type exists among the modern descendents of Fatih Sultan Mehmed. Many European painters drawed the portraits of many ancient Ottoman sultans.

For example, the ancient painters of Attila could have easily seen the pysical facial features of some of the medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region, to know how the facial type of Attila was.

What if the medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region had genealogical trees with ancient drawn pictures of Attila? What if the medieval European painters that draw the picture of Attila, talked with these medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region, and drawed the picture of Attila after these meetings?

MrButlerKing yazdı:The only description of Attila was this.

While there is no surviving first-hand account of Attila's appearance, there is a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who cites a description given by Priscus.[2][3]

Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.[4]

Some modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East Asian, because it has all the combined features that fits the physical type of people from Eastern Asia, and that Attila's ancestors may have come from there.[5][6]

There are lots of other descriptions about the Huns of 4th-6th century AD. Ammianus Marcellinus for example has other descriptions of the Huns of Attila. For example, he mentions that "The Huns covered their Hairy Legs with goat skins". Are Hairy Legs physical feautures of East Asian Han Chinese people? No they are not!

Don't you know the Chinese in past claimed the Uyghurs had very slanty eyes, short, stocky while the Tocharians ( iranian ) of East Turkistan ( a recent name created in past 150 years) were described as White people but they had nothing to do with Chinese

No, it does not show any kind of faked up Iranian/Indo-European proof. Do you have any kind of historical document, proving the fact that Uygurs were of Iranian origin? No, there is no such fact! You can not bend science for your badly intended purposes and goals.

It is the other way around, the people who belong to the faked up definition of "Indo European" are all of Proto Turk Ethnic origin. The Tocharians themselves are of Turk origin.

11th century medieval scholar Mahmud al-Kashgari, writes that both the Sakha's/Scythians and the Tocharians are of Turk origin.

MrButlerKing yazdı:GENETICS OF UYGHURS... the western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than the eastern East Asians. ... STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century AD. The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans, whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.

Translate and read the information on the following link(i have no extra time for your stupid low iq messages): viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10902

MrButlerKing yazdı:You are posting caucasian Uyghurs. Who are not Turks but was described by the Chinese as different ethnicity to Turk, They were Iranian people similar to Tajiks who were later conquered by Mongoloid Turks.

According to ancient Chinese historical documents, the ancestors of the Huns who lived around 2000 BCE, were the first inhabitants of East-Turkistan/Uyguristan/Xinjiang. You are so stupid not to know these simple facts.

As you can see in the picture, the sample size in the "A Y-Chromosomal Comparison of the Madjars (Kazakhstan) and the Magyars (Hungary)" academic study is 45. If you do not have the proper IQ to read the values under the column with the letter of "n", i promise you i will help you to find out how to read these values.

As you can see, 39 of the tested 45 Kazakh Turks, belong to Y-DNA Haplogroup G1, this is 86,7%.Also, Haplogroup G results are not only restricted to the Kazakh tribe of Turks. As you can read from the data at the following page viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12288:

Aeoli yazdı:Yes " majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types

but current Kazakhs are not West Eurasian

Then were do you put the high frequencies(see below) of Y-DNA haplogroup G, J, R, T among specific groups of Kazakh Turks? Are they not Kazakhs? I mean, just until the genetic/anthropological study of Andras Biro Zsolt, no one knew about the dominating Haplogroup G frequencies among the Kazakhs.

-Among the Karkaralinsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 52,8%(94/178),

-Among the Amangeldinsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 25,5%(36/141),

-Among the Akzharsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 55,6%(50/90),

-Among the Magzhan Zhumabaev Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 25,5%(30/87),

-Among the Madjar tribe of the Kazakh Turks, Y-DNA haplogroup G1a is found with 86,7%.

-Among the Argin tribe of the Kazakh Turks, Y-DNA haplogroup G1a is found with 65,0%.

-Among the Kazakh Turks in the South-West region of the Altai Republic, Y-DNA haplogroup G2a is found with 6,7% and G1 is found with 10,0%-Among a group of Kazakh Turks, the Y-DNA Haplogroup J is found with a frequency of 18%.

-In the Altai Republic, among the Kazakh Turks, Haplogroup K*(xL, N, O, P) is found with a frequency of 38,8%(19/49).

What if new studies on different Kazakh populations, will be made by neutral and reliable academic groups, where they will find many other dominating high frequencies of other West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups? All the results i have presented in here, show that the Kazakh Turks have equally West and East Eurasian Y-DNA genetic structure.

The same genetic structure is also present in the Türkiye Turks. There is yet not enough and reliable studies performed. During each genetic study, the historical background of each participant should be determined first. Majority of studies until now, do not take these important steps.

To give an example, at the Gökçümen et. al. 2011 study named "Biological Ancestries, Kinship Connections, and Projected Identities in Four Central Anatolian Settlements: Insights from Culturally Contextualized Genetic Anthropology", among a group of Afshar Turks, 13,3%(4/30) of East Eurasian Haplogroup Q was found. What if future studies find higher frequencies of other East Eurasian Haplogroups among the Türkiye Turks?

As a conclusion, the genetic structure of the Central Asian Turks is 100% the same as the genetic structure as the structure of the Turks of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Balkans, Caucasus, Upper Crimean(Chuvashes, Bashkirs, etc...) regions.

Aeoli yazdı:As you see, majority of C + O which are not related with West Eurasian. Of course I can have genetic material from the first Central Asia but majority is not

And as you can see, i presented you 5 projects done by different academic groups. Why are you being blind for the other studies where obviously clear high West Eurasian frequencies are presented?

According to sources the Kazakh Turk population number in the world is approximately 20 million. There are dozens of Kazakh Turk tribes. Each Kazakh tribe has tens of thousands of families with many sub tribes.

Look at the following image to see a list of Kazakh Turk tribes together with their unique Tamga's/Damga's.

What if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians like Andras Biro Zsolt, and for example what if these future studies will find dominating high frequencies of West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups J1, J2, R1a, R1b, T1a among many of the Kazakh sub tribes?

What if for example a group of 100 Botbay Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup J2?What if for example a group of 100 Altyn Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup R1a?What if for example a group of 100 Kyzylkurt Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup T1a?What if for example a group of 100 Karasakal Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup G1?

Aeoli yazdı:Small tribes can't change anything, just show that they faced a Turkification.

However, if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians and say that old analysis are wrong, majority of all Kazakh nation have haplogroup R1b genes (as Turkmens), I can believe you and I put them into West Eurasian Category.

Kazakhs are not red(East Asian) or yellow (West Asian). They are orange but slightly more East Asian

You can ignore the West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakh Turks, butneutral researchers will see truth among the data i have presented.For example of the 178 Karkaralinsky Kazakh Turk participants, Y-DNA G1 is found with52,8%(94 participants). This has nothing to do with small sample set.Also, the final image you reshared of Kazakhstan Dna Project, if you were to be looking neutrally, you would have seen the fact that there are participants of 17 tribes at the associated study. Out of these 17 tribes, 6 tribes have clear majority of West Eurasian haplogroups. The remaining 11 tribes also contain minority of West Eurasian haplogroups.The study Genetic Landscape of the Central Asia and Volga-Ural Region, of E. K. Khusnutdinova, has done a genetic study on the Kazakh Turks, this is a quote of the associated study:"Kazakhs, carrying C(25%) and J(18%) lineages in relatively high frequencies"Another quotation from the same E. K. Khusnutdinova study:"There is an increasing evidence that Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b3 is not specific to west Europe but rather represent a genetic legacy of ancient widely spread population of Eurasia."

Aeoli yazdı:Is this what you understood from my posts? Confused I told you a million times, there is nocertain border between East Eurasian and West Eurasian. Some nations have to be somewhere between them and some of them have to be more close to one them from another.

This is it so it is not ignoring West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakhs.

But if you ignore the all population and focus on tribes, of course you can find a tribe which is more Uralic then averange Fins or which is more West Eurasian then a Caucausia nation

Focusing on some tribes is wrong method to talk about entire nations. They can be just side source after the research which bases all popuulation.

E, G, I, J, L, R, T"

As you fail to understand, the Türkiye Turks, Azerbaijan Turks, Turkmenistan Turks, Uzbek Turks and Kazakh Turks are the SAME SINGLE TURK NATION, they are NOT different nations.

Where do you base your frequencies on, did you make them up? You are being blind for results that dont interest you, please try to accept the obviously drawn facts.

And i mentioned about the 13,3% of East Eurasian Haplogroup Q among a group of Afshar Turks, where to put these results? Not to forget the fact that Türkiye has a population number more then 70 million, so is it possible to draw a healthy picture of all Turks with a couple hundred of participants of which the historical family line is not known?

Look i am not saying this, read and accept this quotation:

"Kazakhs, carrying C(25%) and J(18%) lineages in relatively high frequencies"

Where to put the equally West(J) and East Eurasian(C) haplogroup frequencies among the Kazakh Turks found in this study? Closing your eyes on these obvious facts wont change anything, but you are free to do anything you wish.

If you really want to know the exact genetic structure of the Kazakh Turks, then feel free to test all 20-30 millions of them. Otherwise, your arguments are not valid. Each study result should be taken seriously, and each study results indicates to facts.

You are not a Turk, that is a fact now, in fact i can see you are a true Turk hater, because you dont even know the obvious sayings of the Azerbaijan Turks, in which they clearly establish the the origin of the Azerbaijan Turks and the Türkiye Turks : "BIR MILLET, IKI DOVLET", which means "ONE TURK NATION, AND TWO STATES(AZERBAIJAN AND TURKIYE)".

Accept it or not, the Türkiye Turks, Azerbaijan Turks, Turkmenistan Turks, Uzbek Turks and Kazakh Turks are the SAME SINGLE TURK NATION, they are NOT different nations. Your hate crime feelings do not have any value in the mind of a neutral academician, end of the point! Copying and pasting meaningless graphics within 2 seconds will not give you any kind of bargain in our discussion. Please do not act like you are a Turk, you are not obviously.